Московский конкурс 2022

На конкурс поступило 26 этюдов от 23 авторов: А.Варицкий, И.Бондарь, М.Храмцевич, Р.Штаудте, M.Шлоссер, M.Мински, Я.Шпренгер, П.Арестов, Е.Егоров, В.Лебедев, О.Перваков, С.Осинцев, А.Тюнин, А.Халифман, В.Мурашов, И. и М.Белоножко, А.Жуков, М.Глинка, Л.Кекели, A.Авни, А.Гаспарян, Л.Гонсалес. Украинские композиторы воздержались от участия в конкурсе, который проводился страной, развязавшей войну ради захвата чужих территорий. Участие некоторых композиторов из Европы выглядит, как одобрение насилия. Могли бы релизовать собственные амбиции в других конкурсах, если вы против войны.

Судьей конкурса был А.Ставриецкий. Его комментарии приводятся в конце решения этюдов.

1 приз. Конь загоняет слонов, ликвидирует одного, попадает в плен и геройски жертвует собой ради пата. Слава герою!

2 приз. Грязная работа. Автор не сумел объединить перспективные варианты с маневрами белых фигур в цельный замысел. Идея со смещением черного короля на b2 для подготовки перевода коня через d3 на критическое поле e5 не состоялась, так как на b2 король мешает черным еще по нескольким причинам.

3 приз. В сравнении с сильным предшественником игра после главного хода стала длиннее, но потеряла остроту. Предшественник лучше.

4 приз. Симпатичный этюд с синтезом предварительных планов. Идее не хватает дистанции, чтобы раскрыться во всей красе. Свое замечание подкреплю этюдом Рябинина, так как все познается в сравнении.

5 приз. Борьба за цугцванг с жертвой ладьи в углу и запиранием короля хорошо известна. Я сразу вспомнил такой этюд. В нем ладья крадет запасной темп черных нападением на пешку, а в отмеченном этюде темп прячется в черной пешке с6, которую ладья отказывается бить. Разница только в подаче схемы.

7 комментариев
Межтекстовые Отзывы
Посмотреть все комментарии
Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
1 месяц назад

Many good studies and generally good judging by Alexandr.

3rd and 4th prizes I like the most for their memorable moves 5. h4 and 6. Ne6 (my taste)

I don’t know what to think about Gonzalez’ study. An introduction of 22 moves without a single capture and then the Novotny, which was already “visible” in the starting position.
Technically impressive for sure. But I believe we need a static-dynamic scale describing the amount of change going on in a study. Not just a question of number of captures, but also if the theme of the studies changes during play.

Captures are not always bad.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
1 месяц назад

The question of whether or not to submit to Russian tournaments is not trivial. To what extent is chess political? Is the participation in a composing tourney already a political statement? On the one hand, you do not want to give the impression to support the Putin regime. On the other hand, the Russian study composition community does not seem to be a bunch of Putin supporters: important Russians composers like Pervakov and Arestov spoke out against the war (and I know of no one who supports it).

In the end I decided to participate in the traditional Moscow tournament. I did not participate in Selivanov-55, by contrast. He sent me a kind invitation, but did not reply to my question about his attitude regarding the war. Of course, it is walking a fine line and I also understand the composers who decide not to participate in Russian tournaments at all.

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
1 месяц назад
Ответ на  Didukh

He refused to judge because he believed it should not be possible to change the rules of an ongoing tournament (WCCT).

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
1 месяц назад

Some quick impressions of the prize studies. But let me first say that I appreciate Stavrietsky’s extensive comments. It is clear that he took the judging seriously and put effort in it.

The verdict on the first prize depends a lot on how you evaluate the coherence of the study. The individual ingredients are good both in the initial play and in the final after 9… Bxa4, but do they make for a great overall dish? Yes, there is the domination theme already in the try 1. d7, but to me, the study looks a bit like a platter where you can taste different cheese and hams. All of them are good, but it is different from a single plate dish.

The second prize does not impress me at all, for reasons that are similar to Steffen’s.

The third prize has fresh and vivid play with good economy and a lot of tension. Convincing study in the old style!

I also like the fifth prize. Of course, the Rh1 motif is well-known, but the logical choice of the rook square in the first move (Rxc6?, Rc4?, Rc5!) and the waiting game with the pawns later on (8. d3!, 10. d6!!) are really great.

Regarding my own study, I do not like my annotations any more. They do not capture the logical structure of the study well. So I redid them and I also eliminated any “position X”.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
1 месяц назад

Now starting to look at the honorable mentions.

Avni’s first HM is really great. White sacrifices his strongest piece with 2. Rh1!! to prepare a quiet move, the sacrifice-barrier Bh2. The black queen is surprisingly helpless. Three moves later, both sides have promoted a queen, but White’s only way to victory is the quiet 5. Qe5!. Again, Black’s cannot play out his numerical superiority on an open board. Of course, the motivation of these two moves is simple, but the combination of spectacular and surprising moves with the excellent economy is extraordinary. Very fresh and creative. For me, this is a clear prize level study.

Arestov’s second HM has an interesting theme and a great pointe, but I find it hard to digest 2. Qxb7.

I am not convinced by the structure of the third HM (Arestov/Hlinka/Kekely). The play is not without interest both in the introduction and in the main scheme, but they do not really fit together. If the theme of the study is the positional draw, I would have chosen a different introduction (or none at all).

The special HM (Belonozhko/Zhukov) is lightweight and humorous. Pity that 4.. Rg7 does not only fail to the thematic 5. Qb3+!, but also to 5. Qb8+ followed by checks on c7, g3 and/or h2.